Ultimate energy source

[San Souci]

Ultimate energy source

I have been thinking of a new energy source and I have come up with a different concept to generate electric power. I have not worked out the final details, so I am here to ask for your help. The picture in the next post is my basic concept.

I hope someone here can help me finalize the concept in real numbers that can determine the energy output.

Please see post #2 for the basic concept.

How about a perpetual motion machine?

 

[Rigby5]

Well, the problem is that he's repeatedly denied it being a "perpetual motion" device while clearly indicating his intent for it to be a prime mover. A machine that generates electrical power in this case.

correct, and thanks for getting involved

We can presume that he'll require electricity to compress / pump the air driving his contraption since he has yet to propose any other method.

Again, you are correct and again I thank you for getting involved in this discussion

So he needs to figure out and explain exactly how the environment is helping to run this thing or admit that it's just been a dumb idea from day one.

I’m not sure what you mean by environment. I am using the upward pulling force of entrapped air.

The concept is simple enough. There is a vertical row of containers filled with air that are tied together combining the lifting force into force (X). At the same time, to maintain this rising force you need to add a new container (Y) with air at the bottom at the same time the top container reaches the surface and turns around on its journey back to the bottom.

The one question remaining is whether you are getting more energy out of the combined lifting containers than the energy needed to recharge the bottom container?

Zero sum energy.
To get air down to the container at the bottom so you can fill it with air and make it rise, requires pumping it down there, with exactly the same force it returns as it rises, minus the friction that is lost.
There is no gain from this at all.

If you have ever tried to pump air down to a swimmer, you would know that the pressure required greatly increases with depth.
The water pressure formula is given by, P = ρ g h = 1000 × 9.8 × depth in meters.
To get air into the container you have to push the water out, and that is very difficult at any depth.

 

[watchingfromafar]

If you have ever tried to pump air down to a swimmer, you would know that the pressure required greatly increases with depth.

You compress air tanks at the surface and use these tanks to supply the are needed.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Principles to run the machine

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)

Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at (unknown) speed. Yet to be calculated

The lifting force of an enclosed container, (bubble); is equal to the volume of water being displaced. To push one cubic foot of enclosed air under water takes a force of 64 pounds at one ATM.

This is the equation that determines the volume of air at different depths.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V = bubble size
V1 is the volume at 1 ATM. Assuming the volume at 1 ATM is 100 cubic feet; at 2 ATM’s the volume is compressed to half its size or 50 cubic feet.
At 18 ATM’s that 100 cubic feet is compressed down to (18/100) X 100 = 18 cubic feet
Formula used (ATM/V1) x V = bubble size
ATM = atmosphere pressure at sea level. The combined lifting force is the volume of each bubble in cubic feet times 64 pounds.
A cubic foot of seawater weighs 64 pounds

If you displace a cubic foot of seawater the force of the water surrounding the cubic force to rise equals 64 pounds

If a boat displaces 1,000 cubic feet of seawater, the boat can weigh as much as
64 X 1,000 = 64,000 pounds or 32 tons without sinking

I call the 64,000 pounds of force to be in a static state or .
If that 32 tons was set into motion, the speed of that motion times the weight measured in foot pounds = torque equation

Please, someone correct me

 

[Rigby5]

If you have ever tried to pump air down to a swimmer, you would know that the pressure required greatly increases with depth.

You compress air tanks at the surface and use these tanks to supply the are needed.

Doesn't matter.
If you want air to come out instead of water going in, you have to compress the tanks to the same pressure you would need if you were just running a hose down to the buckets.
You gain nothing by compressing the tanks at the surface.
If there is not enough air pressure, and the water pressure is greater, then no air will come out of the tanks.

 

[Rigby5]

Principles to run the machine

[1] an enclosed container (X) of air submerged in water has a lifting force (Y) equal to the volume of the water displaced minus the weight of the container;

[2] connecting multiple containers one on top of the other creates a combined lifting force of (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)+ (Y)

Which is a greater lifting force than (Y);

[3] the energy needed to fill one container is equal to the energy needed to sustain the combined lifting force of the 10 (ten) containers referenced above;

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V1 = bubble size

Output of this machine is 118,428 pounds of lifting force moving at (unknown) speed. Yet to be calculated

The lifting force of an enclosed container, (bubble); is equal to the volume of water being displaced. To push one cubic foot of enclosed air under water takes a force of 64 pounds at one ATM.

This is the equation that determines the volume of air at different depths.

Formula used (ATM/V1) X V = bubble size
V1 is the volume at 1 ATM. Assuming the volume at 1 ATM is 100 cubic feet; at 2 ATM’s the volume is compressed to half its size or 50 cubic feet.
At 18 ATM’s that 100 cubic feet is compressed down to (18/100) X 100 = 18 cubic feet
Formula used (ATM/V1) x V = bubble size
ATM = atmosphere pressure at sea level. The combined lifting force is the volume of each bubble in cubic feet times 64 pounds.
A cubic foot of seawater weighs 64 pounds

If you displace a cubic foot of seawater the force of the water surrounding the cubic force to rise equals 64 pounds

If a boat displaces 1,000 cubic feet of seawater, the boat can weigh as much as
64 X 1,000 = 64,000 pounds or 32 tons without sinking

I call the 64,000 pounds of force to be in a static state or .
If that 32 tons was set into motion, the speed of that motion times the weight measured in foot pounds = torque equation

Please, someone correct me

Totally wrong.

First of all, the lifting force of Y is not a constant.
At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.

Second is that the force needed to fill each bucket with air is not constant either, and is totally dependent upon depth, which I do not see in any of your equations. The force needed to get air down to the buckets is greater than the lifting capability of the buckets, due to friction losses.

Nor does it help at all to do all the work of compressing the air into tanks above the surface.
Not only is the work compressing the air greater than the lift you will get out, but then you add the work of hauling the compressed tanks around.

There however is an inexhaustible and free energy source close to what you are describing.
And that is a heat engine, based on the difference in temperature of the ocean between surface and depth

Ocean thermal energy conversion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

{...

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) uses the ocean thermal gradient between cooler deep and warmer shallow or surface seawaters to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity. OTEC can operate with a very high capacity factor and so can operate in base load mode.

The denser cold water masses, formed by ocean surface water interaction with cold atmosphere in quite specific areas of the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean, sink into the deep sea basins and spread in entire deep ocean by the thermohaline circulation. Upwelling of cold water from the deep ocean is replenished by the downwelling of cold surface sea water.

Among ocean energy sources, OTEC is one of the continuously available renewable energy resources that could contribute to base-load power supply.[1] The resource potential for OTEC is considered to be much larger than for other ocean energy forms.[2] Up to 88,000 TWh/yr of power could be generated from OTEC without affecting the ocean's thermal structure.[3]

Systems may be either closed-cycle or open-cycle. Closed-cycle OTEC uses working fluids that are typically thought of as refrigerants such as ammonia or R-134a. These fluids have low boiling points, and are therefore suitable for powering the system's generator to generate electricity. The most commonly used heat cycle for OTEC to date is the Rankine cycle, using a low-pressure turbine. Open-cycle engines use vapor from the seawater itself as the working fluid.

OTEC can also supply quantities of cold water as a by-product. This can be used for air conditioning and refrigeration and the nutrient-rich deep ocean water can feed biological technologies. Another by-product is fresh water distilled from the sea.[4]

OTEC theory was first developed in the 1880s and the first bench size demonstration model was constructed in 1926. Currently the world's only operating OTEC plant is in Japan, overseen by Saga University.
...}

 

[watchingfromafar]

At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.

The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less

Second is that the force needed to fill each bucket with air is not constant either, and is totally dependent upon depth, which I do not see in any of your equations.

The air is compressed at the surface before lowering it. Depth is not an issue at this point

The force needed to get air down to the buckets is greater than the lifting capability of the buckets, due to friction losses.

I agree there will be a drag caused by friction.
The greatest drag will be consumed by the generators at the surface converting this upward force into electrical energy, which will slow down the process creating more time between recharging

Not only is the work compressing the air greater than the lift you will get out, but then you add the work of hauling the compressed tanks around.

There is an equal number of buckets going down as there are going up. Gravity cancels out the difference

There however is an inexhaustible and free energy source close to what you are describing.
And that is a heat engine, based on the difference in temperature of the ocean between surface and depth

That is an interesting point of view
At the bottom of the Mid Atlantic ridge lava is boiling up hot enough to melt rock while jist feet away the water is cold, about 67 degrees f
-

 

[Rigby5]

At greater depth, the air will be far more compressed by the greater pressure, so will have much less lifting force than when near the surface, where the pressure will be lower and the air will greatly expand.

The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less

Second is that the force needed to fill each bucket with air is not constant either, and is totally dependent upon depth, which I do not see in any of your equations.

The air is compressed at the surface before lowering it. Depth is not an issue at this point

The force needed to get air down to the buckets is greater than the lifting capability of the buckets, due to friction losses.

I agree there will be a drag caused by friction.
The greatest drag will be consumed by the generators at the surface converting this upward force into electrical energy, which will slow down the process creating more time between recharging

Not only is the work compressing the air greater than the lift you will get out, but then you add the work of hauling the compressed tanks around.

There is an equal number of buckets going down as there are going up. Gravity cancels out the difference

There however is an inexhaustible and free energy source close to what you are describing.
And that is a heat engine, based on the difference in temperature of the ocean between surface and depth

That is an interesting point of view
At the bottom of the Mid Atlantic ridge lava is boiling up hot enough to melt rock while jist feet away the water is cold, about 67 degrees f
-

Yes I agree, "The air bubble will expand as it rises creating more lift, not less".
But none of your equations factor in depth at all, so are fairly meaningless.
You call the lift Y, but there is no single value Y, as it is not a constant but a calculated value, based on depth.

You say "The air is compressed at the surface before lowering it", and "depth is not an issue at this point", and that is wrong because the energy needed to compress the tanks, and raise it backup again, is greater than the energy released by the air from the tanks. I am not talking about the buckets, but the compressed air tanks. You could avoid having to haul the tanks up for refilling all the time, by just leaving a hose down to where you want to fill the buckets, but then the compressor would have to work much harder, again using more energy than you get back. Could you make another loop for a series of compressed air tanks that would then balance the weight out? I suppose. But at best you would make this almost neutral and it is no energy source.

 

[danielpalos]

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space. Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets. Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.

 

[Rigby5]

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space. Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets. Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.

Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.

 

[danielpalos]

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space. Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets. Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.

Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.

Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future. Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.

 

[Rigby5]

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space. Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets. Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.

Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.

Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future. Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.

Yes, Mr. Fusion, like in "Back to the Future II", would be the ultimate.
I sometime wonder is they already have it, but realize anything that produces too much easy energy has weapons potential?

 

[watchingfromafar]

There is one technical point we must accept and deal with. Fossil fuels are finite, the more we use it, the less we have for future generations. Based on the known oil/gas reserves and the rate we are consuming them the world will consume what oil/gas there is in about 40 years. Now I know that is a long time away and for me I ask, why should I care, I’ll be dead by then. But then there are my grandchildren to worry about, how can they survive without oil/gas to drive their economy?

what do we do-?

 

[Rigby5]

There is one technical point we must accept and deal with. Fossil fuels are finite, the more we use it, the less we have for future generations. Based on the known oil/gas reserves and the rate we are consuming them the world will consume what oil/gas there is in about 40 years. Now I know that is a long time away and for me I ask, why should I care, I’ll be dead by then. But then there are my grandchildren to worry about, how can they survive without oil/gas to drive their economy?

what do we do-?

Correct about gas and oil, but we do have about 400 more years worth of coal.
And while coal does release almost twice as much CO2 when burned, it is much cleaner in terms of fracking, releasing methane, processing into gasoline and other forms, etc.
So logically, until we perfect "Mr. Fusion", we need to rethink our use of coal.

 

[danielpalos]

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space. Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets. Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.

Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.

Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future. Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.

Yes, Mr. Fusion, like in "Back to the Future II", would be the ultimate.
I sometime wonder is they already have it, but realize anything that produces too much easy energy has weapons potential?

For the general welfare not the general warfare!

Satellites for astronomy purposes are becoming small enough to enable fully automated modules with satellites that could dock with the space station and be potentially be launched by railgun technologies throughout our solar system. Launching probes for a "solar system survey" and placing observatories in space for triangulation purposes.

 

[Rigby5]

Upgrading infrastructure could include underground infrastructure to help reclaim green space. Geothermal (substations) could be deep enough to generate energy on a continual basis on their own and for export to other markets.

Separate conduits for risk management purposes for underground infrastructure and could also function as mass (energy storage) that is convenient to markets. Adding capacity for oil storage, for example, could eventually help smooth out that market by having that additional capacity included simply by upgrading infrastructure to render it more market friendly.

Yes, geothermal is likely about the most benign energy source, but eventually it too has some harmful effects, such as cooling off the earth's core, hastening when the earth will lose its magnetosphere protection, like what caused Mars to become sterile.

Going underground now for infrastructure purposes could mean better technologies and concepts already proved, and available in our market-based economy in the near future. Eventually, fusion may be an option to help regulate planetary tempuratures.

Yes, Mr. Fusion, like in "Back to the Future II", would be the ultimate.
I sometime wonder is they already have it, but realize anything that produces too much easy energy has weapons potential?

For the general welfare not the general warfare!

Satellites for astronomy purposes are becoming small enough to enable fully automated modules with satellites that could dock with the space station and be potentially be launched by railgun technologies throughout our solar system. Launching probes for a "solar system survey" and placing observatories in space for triangulation purposes.

In space, the solar energy is vastly greater, so we could easily produce lots of electrical energy in space with solar arrays, thermal heat engines, etc.
But the problem would be getting the energy back down to earth?
If we tried something like a focused directed energy beam like microwaves, could you imagine how dangerous that would be if used as a weapon, even accidentally?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Correct about gas and oil

Its good that we start off agreeing on something. Its a good sign.

but we do have about 400 more years worth of coal.

few of us, if any want to go back to steam run trains & a steam driven car.., it will never fly, at lest as I remember it.

And while coal does release almost twice as much CO2 when burned,

CO2 is not the problem.
Humans exhale CO2
Plants exhale O2
When coal is burned it exhales carbon monoxide, not good for the soul

it is much cleaner in terms of fracking, releasing methane, processing into gasoline and other forms, etc.,

Coal gasification is the process of producing syngas—a mixture consisting primarily of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), natural gas (CH4), and water vapour (H2O)—from coal and water, air and/or oxygen.
Coal gasification - Wikipedia

COAL exhales (CO) i.e. carbon monoxide; which is deadly to animals, i.e. humans

So logically, until we perfect "Mr. Fusion", we need to rethink our use of coal.

There are lots of possibilities
[1] nuclear energy stored up in all those atomic bombs
[2] hydrogen fuel cells
[3] hydro.,.,.,.etc.,.,

 

[Sunsettommy]

The image I am using is too hard to see. I am trying to reduce the image size. Once done I will repost the image.

I can see it easily, you don't understand WHY your idea is nonsense, go look up pumps to figure it out.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Indeed, burning fossil fuels is inefficient and produces lots of toxins. Cleaning up often requires more resources and energy than those extracted. Nuclear power likewise. Attempting to mitigate the risks has cost us more than the product was ever worth.. and we'll be paying a long, long time yet for the messes we've already made.. ones still being made..

Think about the fact that trees come vastly from thin air and sunshine. The small amount of ash from a pellet stove makes great lawn fertilizer. Simple stupid in this case means limiting the potential risk as much as possible by working within known, safe chemical reaction parameters. Sorry, simply not possible starting with Canadian tar sands nor hydraulic fracking goo. A definite limit exists beyond which surface carbon dioxide acts more as a pollutant than a life enabling necessity. We've reached it.

There's no longer any point in extracting more carbon (coal, crude oil, natural gas) from beneath the Earth's crust. We already recycle surface carbon like crazy. All burning of wood or pelletized fuels is just recycling surface carbon. Zero carbon added. We could always make things like propane and "natural gas" from recycled waste if we really wanted to, but making do with less while switching to relatively clean, electrically powered tech is much smarter. After all, the entire Universe runs on electricity.

Like it or not, wind generators and (rooftop!) solar panels combined with swiftly improving base power battery tech shall be and remain our primary power source for the foreseeable future. Best quit kvetching and get used to it.

 

[watchingfromafar]

We could always make things like propane and "natural gas" from recycled waste if we really wanted to, but making do with less while switching to relatively clean, electrically powered tech is much smarter. After all, the entire Universe runs on electricity.

There are some things we have no control over, and one is the amount of oil & gas that is in the ground. This quality is finite that and there are about 40 years left at the rate we are consuming it now. Whether we like it or not we must switch to renewables if we want our civilization to continue. China knows this and they are way ahead of us in renewable technologies. Many European countries see the writing on the wall and are working hard to make the transition.

Even our car manufacturing companies are gearing up for the transition.
Here are a few who are working hard to save the day.--

renewable energy sources - Google Search

-